Kowthalam Shafee vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition had become infructuous due to subsequent developments during its pendency. The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this statement. Consequently, the Court found no reason to proceed with the merits of the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that if parties agree that a matter has become infructuous, the Court will dismiss it as such. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also to stand closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Kowthalam Shafee, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. The respondents were the Union of India and others. The writ petition was filed during a specific period, and the order or action under challenge is not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history indicates that the writ petition was pending before the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous due to subsequent developments during its pendency and prayed for its dismissal as infructuous. The counsel for the respondents did not dispute this submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to subsequent developments during its pendency, as submitted by the petitioner's counsel? (Question of fact) Contentions: Petitioner: The writ petition has become infructuous due to subsequent developments that have occurred during its pendency. Therefore, it should be dismissed as infructuous. Revenue/State: The respondents' counsel did not dispute the submission made by the petitioner's counsel.